7 ms·

What I don't get is how the bar for the Democrats seems to be so much higher than for Trump. Sure, "the typical man" is more easily validated by Trump than Harr

by y7 2y ago

What I don't get is how the bar for the Democrats seems to be so much higher than for Trump. Sure, "the typical man" is more easily validated by Trump than Harris, but at the same time Trump says much worse things about women than Harris about men. I can see how the Harris seems more "elitist" in a way than Trump, but to me that seems like a subtle negative versus Trump's long list of very obvious flaws. How does the hatred for the Democrats get so big?

selfmodruntime 2y ago
Trump doesn't alienate a specific group of hardworking Americans who turn out to vote. The people who are turned off by him largely don't vote at all. > but at the same time Trump says much worse things about women than Harris about men One would think so, but Trump's talk about women is just how society in general talks about women. As sad as it is, women are used to that rhetoric. > How does the hatred for the Democrats get so big? Multiple high profile members of the Democratic Party actively demonize rural Americans and especially men.
- n4r9 2y ago
  You're saying that Trump won because US society is misogynistic?
  - selfmodruntime 2y ago
    In essence, yes. I'm saying that Trump's narrative on women is no worse than societies default. Women experience far worse things than macho talk. It takes more to alienate a lot of them.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      It feels like you're balancing two conflicting notions here: 1. Stop calling average people ignorant. 2. Average people are misogynistic.
      - gitremote 2y ago
        I'm politically the opposite of the person you're replying to, but these two notions are correct and not contradictory. Average people are ignorant and misogynist, and we should acknowledge this and talk about it, but not to their face. If you're not the direct target of the ignorance or misogyny, you should explain to them why their assumptions are false in a dumbed-down way, not using university-level language. Calling people ignorant directly will get them defensive and emotional. They will think they are being attacked because they are a man. Of course, for people who are directly targeted by the ignorance and misogyny, it's their right to directly call it out, but they might not call it out at all, because they would be targeted further.
      - EraYaN 2y ago
        The difference between what they are and what you should call them. Getting voted in asks for coddling your potential base.
- zip1234 2y ago
  Trump talks shit about everyone—somehow all his supporters ignore that he has trashed each and every one of them at some point
soco 2y ago
We call that "double standard" and it's top on the list of common fallacies. The lack of education, whether I demonize it or not, definitely has a saying in its spread. And dismantling the department of education won't help getting people more educated in the following elections.
dbspin 2y ago
I think the difference is that Harris (less so than Clinton but to some extent) was seen as representing a liberal consensus that men, particularly white, heterosexual men are 'over', that the 'future is female', etc. Trump is just Trump. A rhetorically violent, deeply unpleasant convicted rapist, but not the vanguard of an explicitly misognist movement. At least not one thats culturally hegemonic. So while American progressives may label Trump voters sexist or racist, the overwhelming majority of them don't see themselves that way. Meanwhile, a highly vocal minority of progressives do actively demean men, while people, straight people etc, and have for a decade. They've enacted DEI practices, and scholarship and funding practices that exclude men from fair participation in the workforce, education and the arts. As efforts to correct historic imbalances in that participation. At the same time, they've ignored how male participation in higher education has dropped off, the epidemics of alienation and underemployment affecting men. Edit: Just to clarify I'm addressing the question - not advocating Trump, or suggesting that life for men or white people or straight people is in fact materially worse. Just pointing out people strongly dislike being disliked, actively biased against and demeaned and this does in fact affect their voting preferences.
- archagon 2y ago
  Yes, being a woman in power is clearly a political statement in this country.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    I'm genuinely at a loss as to how that connects to anything I wrote. It's not Harris' gender that was the issue - to the extent that the position I'm taking helped shift the dial. It's the perception that she would continue the policies and forward the ideological perspectives listed above. It doesn't help that she seems extremely disingenuous and politically opportunistic. Trump is of course both these things - but conservatives seem to care less about that, likely because of the redemption narrative built into Christianity. You can be as much of a villain as you like provided you push that button. It's worth noting that Obama and Bill Clinton both pushed their Christianity when campaigning, and that appeal wasn't lost on evangelicals. Progressives, it would be difficult not to admit, are pretty adamantly set against redemption currently.
lynx23 2y ago
I dont know about the USA. But I know from personal experience, that COVID politics destroyed my trust in left-leaning parties. I voted left until 2020. I will never give them my vote again, ever.
- n4r9 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Applejinx 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lynx23 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - n4r9 2y ago
        To be fair, RFK Jr believes that vaccines are linked to autism and wants to ban fluoride in drinking water because it's "linked to cancer". It's very worrying that he could be setting health policy.
        Applejinx 2y ago
        I could have put it better, I think. But that's basically what I was driving at. Whether I'm off base calling him a 'weird crank', or have to behave as if he has more legitimacy (which will be difficult, though I could try harder), he's very much on record as wanting to ban and stop many things that in his mind are like terrible crimes against citizens. I'm not uncomfortable lumping a lot of that together as 'medicine'. For instance, we know vaccination in general raises his ire, but he also seems to object to pasteurization. If he remains in a position to be able to ban that practice, it could be a significant driver of health-related issues. And I do think he's in a position to be able to ban or at least substantially punish the practice of pasteurization, vaccination, flouridation… it's unclear how much influence the man will have, but it could be a great deal.
danmaz74 2y ago
My impression is that it's not about what Kamala Harris (or most Democrats) said, but the fact that the Republicans were able to create the perception that there are strong movements which hate "whites" and which hate "men" (in various combinations), and that voting Democrats would help those movements. Apparently, they were able to convince enough non-white men and white women that Trump will be better for them.
Applejinx 2y ago
It doesn't. Part of what you're seeing is just straight up cheating. Florida wouldn't allow election observers. It might take a little while to sink in, but American elections are more or less running like Russian elections at this point, and these results are what you get when it's not honest. Sometimes it's like this, and sometimes the leader figure is said to get like 99% of the vote, when he doesn't feel like playing coy about it. It's up to him, not you. America started when it rebelled against being ruled. I'd say that's not entirely off the table. First it has to become clear that we're getting ruled, not represented.
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  Wait who cheated when? Maybe you should go to the capital and protest
  - Applejinx 2y ago
    Not a chance. Not nearly as safe as when the Jan 6 guys went. This is no time to be a hothead. I'm minding my own business, I'm not an idiot.
fireflash38 2y ago
The simple fact is, Trump is a rorschach/inkblot test. He is everything people claim and nothing at all. He says so much bullshit constantly that you have to just ignoring or discounting shit he says. So he reflects what you believe.

by y7 2y ago

selfmodruntime 2y ago

Trump doesn't alienate a specific group of hardworking Americans who turn out to vote. The people who are turned off by him largely don't vote at all. > but at the same time Trump says much worse things about women than Harris about men One would think so, but Trump's talk about women is just how society in general talks about women. As sad as it is, women are used to that rhetoric. > How does the hatred for the Democrats get so big? Multiple high profile members of the Democratic Party actively demonize rural Americans and especially men.

n4r9 2y ago
You're saying that Trump won because US society is misogynistic?
- selfmodruntime 2y ago
  In essence, yes. I'm saying that Trump's narrative on women is no worse than societies default. Women experience far worse things than macho talk. It takes more to alienate a lot of them.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    It feels like you're balancing two conflicting notions here: 1. Stop calling average people ignorant. 2. Average people are misogynistic.
    - gitremote 2y ago
      I'm politically the opposite of the person you're replying to, but these two notions are correct and not contradictory. Average people are ignorant and misogynist, and we should acknowledge this and talk about it, but not to their face. If you're not the direct target of the ignorance or misogyny, you should explain to them why their assumptions are false in a dumbed-down way, not using university-level language. Calling people ignorant directly will get them defensive and emotional. They will think they are being attacked because they are a man. Of course, for people who are directly targeted by the ignorance and misogyny, it's their right to directly call it out, but they might not call it out at all, because they would be targeted further.
    - EraYaN 2y ago
      The difference between what they are and what you should call them. Getting voted in asks for coddling your potential base.
zip1234 2y ago
Trump talks shit about everyone—somehow all his supporters ignore that he has trashed each and every one of them at some point

soco 2y ago

We call that "double standard" and it's top on the list of common fallacies. The lack of education, whether I demonize it or not, definitely has a saying in its spread. And dismantling the department of education won't help getting people more educated in the following elections.

dbspin 2y ago

I think the difference is that Harris (less so than Clinton but to some extent) was seen as representing a liberal consensus that men, particularly white, heterosexual men are 'over', that the 'future is female', etc. Trump is just Trump. A rhetorically violent, deeply unpleasant convicted rapist, but not the vanguard of an explicitly misognist movement. At least not one thats culturally hegemonic. So while American progressives may label Trump voters sexist or racist, the overwhelming majority of them don't see themselves that way. Meanwhile, a highly vocal minority of progressives do actively demean men, while people, straight people etc, and have for a decade. They've enacted DEI practices, and scholarship and funding practices that exclude men from fair participation in the workforce, education and the arts. As efforts to correct historic imbalances in that participation. At the same time, they've ignored how male participation in higher education has dropped off, the epidemics of alienation and underemployment affecting men. Edit: Just to clarify I'm addressing the question - not advocating Trump, or suggesting that life for men or white people or straight people is in fact materially worse. Just pointing out people strongly dislike being disliked, actively biased against and demeaned and this does in fact affect their voting preferences.

archagon 2y ago
Yes, being a woman in power is clearly a political statement in this country.
- dbspin 2y ago
  I'm genuinely at a loss as to how that connects to anything I wrote. It's not Harris' gender that was the issue - to the extent that the position I'm taking helped shift the dial. It's the perception that she would continue the policies and forward the ideological perspectives listed above. It doesn't help that she seems extremely disingenuous and politically opportunistic. Trump is of course both these things - but conservatives seem to care less about that, likely because of the redemption narrative built into Christianity. You can be as much of a villain as you like provided you push that button. It's worth noting that Obama and Bill Clinton both pushed their Christianity when campaigning, and that appeal wasn't lost on evangelicals. Progressives, it would be difficult not to admit, are pretty adamantly set against redemption currently.

lynx23 2y ago

I dont know about the USA. But I know from personal experience, that COVID politics destroyed my trust in left-leaning parties. I voted left until 2020. I will never give them my vote again, ever.

n4r9 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Applejinx 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lynx23 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - n4r9 2y ago
      To be fair, RFK Jr believes that vaccines are linked to autism and wants to ban fluoride in drinking water because it's "linked to cancer". It's very worrying that he could be setting health policy.
      - Applejinx 2y ago
        I could have put it better, I think. But that's basically what I was driving at. Whether I'm off base calling him a 'weird crank', or have to behave as if he has more legitimacy (which will be difficult, though I could try harder), he's very much on record as wanting to ban and stop many things that in his mind are like terrible crimes against citizens. I'm not uncomfortable lumping a lot of that together as 'medicine'. For instance, we know vaccination in general raises his ire, but he also seems to object to pasteurization. If he remains in a position to be able to ban that practice, it could be a significant driver of health-related issues. And I do think he's in a position to be able to ban or at least substantially punish the practice of pasteurization, vaccination, flouridation… it's unclear how much influence the man will have, but it could be a great deal.

danmaz74 2y ago

My impression is that it's not about what Kamala Harris (or most Democrats) said, but the fact that the Republicans were able to create the perception that there are strong movements which hate "whites" and which hate "men" (in various combinations), and that voting Democrats would help those movements. Apparently, they were able to convince enough non-white men and white women that Trump will be better for them.

Applejinx 2y ago

It doesn't. Part of what you're seeing is just straight up cheating. Florida wouldn't allow election observers. It might take a little while to sink in, but American elections are more or less running like Russian elections at this point, and these results are what you get when it's not honest. Sometimes it's like this, and sometimes the leader figure is said to get like 99% of the vote, when he doesn't feel like playing coy about it. It's up to him, not you. America started when it rebelled against being ruled. I'd say that's not entirely off the table. First it has to become clear that we're getting ruled, not represented.

idunnoman1222 2y ago
Wait who cheated when? Maybe you should go to the capital and protest
- Applejinx 2y ago
  Not a chance. Not nearly as safe as when the Jan 6 guys went. This is no time to be a hothead. I'm minding my own business, I'm not an idiot.

fireflash38 2y ago

The simple fact is, Trump is a rorschach/inkblot test. He is everything people claim and nothing at all. He says so much bullshit constantly that you have to just ignoring or discounting shit he says. So he reflects what you believe.